[quote]deanec wrote:
Prof X used the “word” in his post. (Nothing personal X)
[/quote]
IRREGARDLESS of my use of a non-existant word, you didn’t have to call me on it. At least save for that times when I type something much more offensive.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
deanec wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
“The world is my country, all mankind are my brethern, and to do good is my religion” - Thomas Paine
I don’t want to get into a pissing match with you, and this is a nice quote, but get real. In an ideal world, this is fine and good, but we don’t live in an ideal world. Jihadists don’t want to be your “brother”, they want you to die.
Thomas Paine also wrote “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.”
“The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke
No pissing match, I understand your point. But looking at the world through my kind of paradigm, lines we draw on the ground and call boundaries mean little to me. I have far more in common, in thoughts and ideals, with a Zapatista in Mexico, or an anti-globalization protestor in Peru, than I do with a rich white man who sits in power in the White House, or Senate, regardless of their “party”.
Jihadists have been brainwashed by religion into thinking that Americans are evil- when, in my opinion, it is not “Americans” per se, but our foriegn policy, that is evil. They look at it as fighting against oppression- while I look at them and believe that “fighting oppression” means destroying the burdens on organized religion and making their states based on thought and a social contract between the people and the government. It can be achieved- it was during our Revolution (when Paine wrote those words), and during the French Revolution.
However, it is a longer fight that they have to fight, being as they have been indoctrinated since youth into thinking that the murder of civilians- other working men and women- is somehow justified by the notion that God will reward them. But we are not helping that cause by being in Iraq, and showing blatant favoritismto Israel- we are actually hurting this cause, as they have a negative reaction to our system of government, which, as much as I sometimes dislike it, is the first step to a better Republic.
I am not a fan of Edmund Burke, nor anyone who disliked the ideal of the French Revolution. Burke was trying to ensure that such a revolution did not happen in England and overthrow the monarchy, as some say he believed in gradual reform. Marx thought otherwise: “The sycophant?who in the pay of the English oligarchy played the romantic laudator temporis acti against the French Revolution just as, in the pay of the North American colonies at the beginning of the American troubles, he had played the liberal against the English oligarchy?was an out-and-out vulgar bourgeois.”
Want to see a pissing match? Check out Burke vs. Paine. It makes Rainjack vs. Vroom look like PAL basketball ;)[/quote]
While you and I have different a different worldview, I am sure we do have some common ground. Where I perceive the primary difference is in how we deal with the “problem”. You wrote of the “fight they have to fight” as if does not involve us, when in reality it most certainly does. The idea that pulling out our troops of all foreign theatres and forsaking Israel will change the Jihadist mind toward us is not realistic.
Please remember that even countries that practice appeasement (i.e. France) are not immune from ethnic unrest. I am not sure that a detente with such a foe is possible, never mind the abstract ideal of “peace” and “equality”. During the cold war, our enemies did not want to be die any more than we did; this enemy is less inclined to be restrained by thoughts of death, in fact in many cases the opposite is true.
I don’t think your average Jihadist gives a crap about social justice and world peace. If the real war is for the heart and mind, I don’t think that is achieved by appeasement or retreat.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
deanec wrote:
Prof X used the “word” in his post. (Nothing personal X)
IRREGARDLESS of my use of a non-existant word, you didn’t have to call me on it. At least save for that times when I type something much more offensive.[/quote]
Sorry man, pet peeve. Uncalled for on my part in the context of the conversation…
Just don’t do it again!
[quote]hedo wrote:
Much of the anti-war speech is misguided and uninformed, some blatant lies. Endemic to politics I think but still wrong.
Whether the intention is to support the enemy or not speech’s by Howard Dean and John Kerry give the enemy hope, prolong the war and increase casualties among our troops. The same one’s the anti-war activist claim to want to protect.
[/quote]
Maybe I’m missing something but it seems pretty easy to substitute Dean Kerry with Bush et al. and anti-war with pro-war and have both these statements ring true.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
hedo wrote:
Much of the anti-war speech is misguided and uninformed, some blatant lies. Endemic to politics I think but still wrong.
Whether the intention is to support the enemy or not speech’s by Howard Dean and John Kerry give the enemy hope, prolong the war and increase casualties among our troops. The same one’s the anti-war activist claim to want to protect.
Maybe I’m missing something but it seems pretty easy to substitute Dean Kerry with Bush et al. and anti-war with pro-war and have both these statements ring true.[/quote]
maybe a different thread.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Fightin’ –
That’s the gist then – if you don’t think the U.S. has a just cause, and that “victory,” however defined, would not be a just result, then I think that in such a case one couldn’t say that your anti-war speech would be immoral.
BTW, I think “moral” here in this case requires internal consistency more than anything else. You can self-define it, but if you decide the U.S. has a just and moral cause, then you try to analyze.
I think it makes a lot of sense to look at the rational expectations of the effect of the speech when making the determination. I think one can only be morally responsible for something one intends to do (except for a few exceptions of truly gross negligence in not knowing).
So, what are the expected effects of anti-war speech? (probably different for different critiques, but see if we can name a few).
Demoralization of the troops?
Emboldening the enemy because they think political discord at home can “defeat” us when they couldn’t otherwise?
Improving the odds of success by pointing out weaknesses and getting them fixed?
It seems they have the potential to cut both ways – what are some more?[/quote]
This is something I also was thinking- to me it seems ridiculous that people are now not supporting the “war effort” because we don’t have an exit strategy. Now that they figure out its a quagmire, they want to get out. These are the people that truly frustrate me (every Dem who supported the war).
I don’t want them on the anti-war side! Be anti-war because you think the war is wrong in its very nature! Not because you started something you don’t want to finish! This pisses me off quite a bit. I don’t know why they are so surprised that troops are dying- its a damn war. That’s what happens. Maybe they should have looked into that before they voted for this fucking thing.
[quote]deanec wrote:
Much of the anti-war rhetoric is inaccurate, misguided and unwise in my estimation, but immoral - I don’t think so.
[/quote]
Agree with that 100%.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
4) Certain forms of speech (for example, strong demands that U.S. troops withdraw) objectively aid the enemy (say this speech emboldens the enemy, so more U.S. troops die and chances for victory are reduced), even if the speaker does not intend to do so.
If all this is true, isn’t the speech in question morally objectionable, even if constitutionally permitted?
Professor X wrote:
If that is the case, and the outcome should be logically placed over the initial act or its relevance, then the other argument about Tookie being put to death links directly in with this mentality. You can’t claim that free speech should have boundaries based on the potential outcome…yet then carry out penalties based on past actions irregardless of the acts of the individual since that time and the potential good that may result in the future. Right or wrong?
Moral is different than legal prof. You can claim something is perfectly legal but is immoral. I believe that’s GDollars argument regarding stuff that’s “tantamount to torture.”
[/quote]
I don’t want to drag this thread into the torture discussion, but just to be clear, I think what this administration has authorized and condoned in the interrogation of detainees IS torture. It’s the Bush team and its defenders (the Journal, Hugh Hewitt, you) who are playing with semantics, not me. Anyway, back to the topic at hand.
[quote]hedo wrote:
…
When your country has sent men to fight they should be supported. Limit free speech no. Show some decorum and common sense…maybe even some responsibility, yes.
[/quote]
Sums it up nicely.